Sola Scriptura

[praxis62]

Nun_ofthe_Above:

Hi Praxis62,

I know this might shock a lot of people in here, but I put ‘Bible’ first.
Now, to clarify that; I would like to draw your attention to the fact that not all Sola Scriptura, is the same…I know that sounds odd, and it is, but it is true.
If we look to the Early Church Fathers, we find the general concensus, that we should follow tradition, so long as it does not contradict Scripture. This body of thought is shared with the Sola Scriptura believing Lutheran’s, etc. A Lutheran would be able to follow any teaching of the Catholic Church, provided it did not appear to contradict Scripture.
Now, on the other hand, you have those Sola Scriptura followers, who take it literally to mean you can only follow the bible; no seemingly man made traditions are to be adhered to…not sure how that works exactly, as it would seem that they have to make up their own traditions to get their own denomination off the ground…perhaps someone could enlighten me on this subject…
I mean no disrespect to those of other denominations, and apologise if I have offended anyone.
I hope the above explaination, makes sense.

Peace to you and your loved ones.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

…cont

“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

**The Clementine Homilies. More, more, more!

**

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

**Tertullian. Look at that! “…the Lord left the keys of it to PETER here…”
**

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

**The Letter of Clement to James. Even more backup.
**

“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

**Ignatius of Antioch. Poor fellow can’t command people like Peter did.

**“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth of fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not onyl ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified the result corresponded to His predictions.” Phlegon quoted by Origen (sometime during the reign of Hadrian, AD 117-138)

**The emperor is getting Peter confused with the Founder of Christianity! What does that tell you about his prominense?

**“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). Cyprian of Carthage. Pretty cut and dry.
**

“But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too [the translation in my book is "from whence our authority derives]. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]” (*Demurrer Against the Heretics *36 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian. Notice “from whence our authority derives.”*

 

[praxis62]

Dear Nun: Thanks for the reply. Would a Luthern accept the Catholic doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the Primacy of the Pope, Purgatory, etc?
The Lutherans that I know would not buy into any of those things because they are not explicitly stated in the Bible. My question is this: does it make more sense to start a dialog with Protestants by establishing the role of the Church in the formation of scripture before we start exchanging scriptural quotes? I think it does. Ecclesiology comes first, then we have a proper context for everything else.
Thanks again for the reply. I think we are on the same page.
Praxis62

 

[elizabeth4truth]

Caldera:

-Detailing what is allowed inside the bedroom inside of marriage.

-Contraception as something harmful when they allow smoking and drinking.

-Dogmas such as the Marian Dogmas of late which create another obstacle for already separated brethren without any proof, and completely unnecessary to make them binding if they have any concern for unity. Otherwise, it seems like nothing more than a power struggle for continued authority.

Dear Caldera,

You hit on a few topics I’d like to address.

As far as I see, our Catholic beliefs are backed in scripture. I find nothing in our tradition, that isn’t possible for God. Any and all arguments to defend our faith are found in scripture. It would be nice to know and speak Hebrew and have original translations. Unfortunately I don’t, and can only comprehend what’s in my world, which is The New American Bible.

Why do our beliefs, regarding Jesus’ Mother, separate us? Is this an area Protestants choose to attack us to try and discredit the authority of the Roman Catholic Church? Are they seeking to please God or seeking to gain control of the Christian masses?

Why do we argue? It’s all vanity and accomplishes little, when our hearts become stubborn and unwilling to love our Christian neighbor, as ourselves, because of the differences in our traditions and beliefs.

“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” John 7:24 Can mankind ever judge justly? Has Mother Mary been judged justly by mankind? We believe she was pre-justified by her Son; saved before her birth. Is that impossible for God?

“But we know where He is from. When the Messiah comes, no one will know where He is from.” John 7:27 The profound mystery of Christ’s birth is a profound mystery. Catholics choose to believe it has special meaning for the one chosen, “full of grace” by God.

There are many problems in the Church because human beings have charge of it. That doesn’t mean its precepts are wrong. There is also corruption in non-Catholic denominations, as well.

The issue of contracepting being wrong, isn’t one I learned through the Church. It’s one I learned through experiene. It is backed however, through scripture and the teachings of the Church.

I too had a drinking problem. I drank to enable my now deceased husband. Once I went to confession because I was having resentment toward my husband, because of my drinking problem. When I explained this to the priest, he retorted, “When you die and are standing before our Lord, do you think you will be able to blame your husband?” Boy did my eyes open wide. If only more priests could articulate God’s truth as well but, they can’t or they don’t and in that they often fail in their duty.

Dear Lord God, please help Your holy priests to lead Your people back to You. May they have the protection of the holy angels, always at their side. May they be filled with Your grace and enable Your flock to be holy ones who choose to love You with all their heart, mind and strength. In Jesus name I pray. Amen.

Peace to you,
Elizabeth

 

[thessalonian]

The pole is lacking “me first”. Unfortunately I think that is the reality I find. Most non-catholics think that because they interprut it that way, that is what the scriptures say. I’m not trying to be rude on insulting.

When you say Church first, I take that to be sacred oral tradition and sacred written tradition. Those according to the Catechism are on equal footing.

Blessings

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

…cont

“A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (*Church History *5:23:1–24:11).

**Pope Victor. The source, the link I provided, sums that up
-"…Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication."

**“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (*The Little Labyrinth *[A.D. 211], in Eusebius, *Church History *5:28:3).

**Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

**This is how I think it sounds like it went, in plain English. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m only trying to put this together from what I’ve read.

The people knew Peter was the Rock. Remember all the apostles were there with Jesus, so if Peter for some strange reason went nuts and lied, they could stop him. But they knew he was the rock, so they were ok with it. Peter was given the title/position of Bishop of Rome (I’m looking for some earlier quotes in my book that come out and say it to support the lsat one). Rome, as we have found, is the biggest church there is, the most ancient, and, apparantly, the one that all seem to take orders from. My guess is it went like this-Peter, since he was to be the bossman, was given the head of the biggest church there was. The other Churches knew this and submitted themselves to Rome’s will. Peter ordained the Bishops to be head after him, and the line continued today, although now we do it democratically. Ignatius of Antioch, in 110 says something to the extent of “…wherever there is Jesus Christ, there is the Catholic Church.” This name was used to distinguish God’s true Church from the growing heresies of the day.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Caldera-As far as the Marian beliefs as far as I know, everyone, the Catholics and the early Protestants alike taught those doctrines. The dispute came around in the 1800’s. I’ve heard the 1850’s, more specifically.

 

[Zooey]

I’m sure that no one will be surprised that, as a Methodist, I voted “Bible first”. But I do want to point out that we, in that tradition, do not hold to sola scriptura…

The Wesley Quadrilateral uses

1. 
   *]Scripture.
   *]Tradition.
   *]Experience.
   *]Reason.
   
   Scripture is foundational. But always with an eye to what the church has taught, inc. ECFs, especially; to what other Christians–including those in other traditions–believe & teach; As well as what my grandparents used to call the “most uncommon sense”–common sense.
   So while I find the Bible as my primary source, this is always held in tension with other sources. Now, I may not define some things as a Catholic would. But I find myself, almost as often as not, agreeing with Catholics over other Protestants, on many things. (But not all).

 

[praxis62]

thessalonian:

The pole is lacking “me first”. Unfortunately I think that is the reality I find. Most non-catholics think that because they interprut it that way, that is what the scriptures say. I’m not trying to be rude on insulting.

When you say Church first, I take that to be sacred oral tradition and sacred written tradition. Those according to the Catechism are on equal footing.

Blessings

Thessalonian: Your right, “me first” should have been there to chose from. And you are also right about my “church first” comments. As a practical matter have you had much luck debating Protestants using their bible quoting scheme? I haven’t. In my experience we don’t make much headway until we get around to the questions of Church, authority, apostolic succession, etc. Trading bible quotes has never been a very effective tool for me. I’m wondering what other people have to say about it.
Thanks
Praxis62

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

Hi Elizabeth,
I agree, Pride is indeed a problem on both sides; and no doubt a very large contributor to the current division within Christianity.
I for one would love for everyone to get ‘on the same page’ and follow Jesus as taught by Him and the Apostles.

May God forgive us all for our arrogance and pride.

Peace be with you and those whom you love.

 

[thessalonian]

praxis62:

Thessalonian: Your right, “me first” should have been there to chose from. And you are also right about my “church first” comments. As a practical matter have you had much luck debating Protestants using their bible quoting scheme? I haven’t. In my experience we don’t make much headway until we get around to the questions of Church, authority, apostolic succession, etc. Trading bible quotes has never been a very effective tool for me. I’m wondering what other people have to say about it.
Thanks
Praxis62

I focus mainly on quoting scripture because that is what we have in common. The Church fathers are an effective tool as well. The Catechism only comes in handy in refuting where they misrepresent our faith for the most part. I have had some success in debating scripture. But you have to remember that sometimes it takes years for the seeds planted to germinate. My father had this field that had never had clover on it when he owned it. One year the whole thing came up in clover. The neighbors said it had been 20 years since there had been clover planted there and it just took that long for the conditions to be right and the seed to germinate.

The point is that we feel like we need to reel these people in. Your just planting seeds and the effects may not be seen until long after you have had contact with this person. One guy I debated quite a bit on a board called baptistboard. He was one of those that was fair but unmoved it seemed. Well I ran in to him about a year ago on another board (I got booted off baptistboard for preaching catholicism.). He was then in RCIS and thanked me for sticking to my guns regarding Catholicis. Another guy was on a Catholic board debating with this friend of mine. I took some of it offline and did it through emails. He seemed to stick to his anti-catholic rhethoric. Eventually we stopped emailing. Well 6 months later (a couple of weeks ago) he contacted me and asked if he could ask me questions. Said he was searching for more and he was reading Keatings Catholicism and Fundamentalism.I have a pole on this board and on another about whether people have converted based on message boards. So far it is 15:1 in favor of protestants converting to Catholicism being influenced significantly by message boards. Hang in there and hang with the truth. You are having an effect. And first and foremost PRAY!

Blessings

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

**Hi Praxis62 **

**I think it does depend on which branch of Lutheranism you adhere to; for instance some are rather more liberal in thinking and others **
are much the same as Luther intended. Some Lutheran churches are in Communion with Rome and others are not; however, having said that, Lutheran’s as a whole are free to accept or reject any teaching / Tradition that is not seemingly addressed within the Bible. For instance; the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. As we know, Luther had a powerful devotion to the Blessed Mother.
Purgatory, (as a once, would-be Lutheran) was a concept I took on board, even though Luther rejected it; having said that, I did not find anything within the bible which rejected the notion, and several things, which alluded to it, even though it is not mentioned in the exact term, Purgatory.
The Primacy of the Pope is an issue in and of itself, and it really does depend upon the branch you adhere to.

I have copied a piece from Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book 3,1,1
which shows one of the examples of the Church Fathers, which I adhere to; which I hope helps to clarify my position on Sola Scriptura, a little.

The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record, until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, maker of heaven and earth. 1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.
(Italicized emphasis is mine)

---

Sometimes when talking to people from another denomination, you would be setting up the makings of a debate rather than a discussion, if you first try to establish the Authority of the Church; which in some, but not necessarily all cases; makes for a futile exercise. Sometimes it is best to start off with scripture and see where you can go from there; keeping in mind that the main things you have in common with other denominations is Jesus and the Bible…

**I guess I should point out that I am not a Lutheran and have been contemplating the Catholic Church for several years now; I just thought it should be pointed out that when we talk Sola Scriptura, we should understand that not everyone has the same understanding of it. **

Once again, I mean no disrespect to any denomination.

---

**Peace and Love to all. **

 

[thessalonian]

**Hi Praxis62 **

**I think it does depend on which branch of Lutheranism you adhere to; for instance some are rather more liberal in thinking and others **
are much the same as Luther intended. Some Lutheran churches are in Communion with Rome and others are not; however, having said that, Lutheran’s as a whole are free to accept or reject any teaching / Tradition that is not seemingly addressed within the Bible. For instance; the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. As we know, Luther had a powerful devotion to the Blessed Mother.
Purgatory, (as a once, would-be Lutheran) was a concept I took on board, even though Luther rejected it; having said that, I did not find anything within the bible which rejected the notion, and several things, which alluded to it, even though it is not mentioned in the exact term, Purgatory.
The Primacy of the Pope is an issue in and of itself, and it really does depend upon the branch you adhere to.

I have copied a piece from Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book 3,1,1
which shows one of the examples of the Church Fathers, which I adhere to; which I hope helps to clarify my position on Sola Scriptura, a little.

The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record, until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, maker of heaven and earth. 1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.
(Italicized emphasis is mine)

Sometimes when talking to people from another denomination, you would be setting up the makings of a debate rather than a discussion, if you first try to establish the Authority of the Church; which in some, but not necessarily all cases; makes for a futile exercise. Sometimes it is best to start off with scripture and see where you can go from there; keeping in mind that the main things you have in common with other denominations is Jesus and the Bible…

**I guess I should point out that I am not a Lutheran and have been contemplating the Catholic Church for several years now; I just thought it should be pointed out that when we talk Sola Scriptura, we should understand that not everyone has the same understanding of it. **

Once again, I mean no disrespect to any denomination.

**Peace and Love to all. **

NunOf,

I like that quote from Irenaus. Those who use it to show Sola Scriptura in the Early Church however neglect a quote a few chapters later in which Irenaus says “if we had not the scriptures we would still have the Church” so the truth would not be lost. He knows the Church is the pillar and support of the truth.

I don’t know of any Lutherans that are in communion with Rome. Some are open to coming to a common understanding where we agree but this does not make them in communion with us.

God bless

 

[Holly3278]

Both first? I honestly don’t know.

 

[praxis62]

Nun: Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate it. I had no idea some Lutheran churches were in communion with Rome. Could you tell me which ones they are. I was an ELCA Lutheran for several years, I know they arn’t, and I know the Missouri Synod isn’t, and I am pretty sure that the Wisconsin Synod and the Apostolic Lutherans isn’t. I am not sure about the Lutheran church in Finland. I just read the other day that they wanted to be Catholics.(?) Can you elaborate on this for me?
As a purely practical matter, it may be necessary to start with scripture quoteing, but sooner or later it has to come around to questions of ecclesiology. Then you can make some progress.
The Church fathers always referred to scripture but usually in the sense that it was understood in the Church. They were not Sola Scriptura Christians, in the sense we understand the term today.
You should jump into the Church with the rest of us, the waters fine.
Thanks Again
Praxis62

 

[jjwilkman]

**Hi Praxis62 **

**I think it does depend on which branch of Lutheranism you adhere to; for instance some are rather more liberal in thinking and others **
are much the same as Luther intended. Some Lutheran churches are in Communion with Rome and others are not; however, having said that, Lutheran’s as a whole are free to accept or reject any teaching / Tradition that is not seemingly addressed within the Bible. For instance; the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. As we know, Luther had a powerful devotion to the Blessed Mother.
Purgatory, (as a once, would-be Lutheran) was a concept I took on board, even though Luther rejected it; having said that, I did not find anything within the bible which rejected the notion, and several things, which alluded to it, even though it is not mentioned in the exact term, Purgatory.
The Primacy of the Pope is an issue in and of itself, and it really does depend upon the branch you adhere to.

I have copied a piece from Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book 3,1,1
which shows one of the examples of the Church Fathers, which I adhere to; which I hope helps to clarify my position on Sola Scriptura, a little.

The apostles did not commence to preach the Gospel, or to place anything on record, until they were endowed with the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit. They preached one God alone, maker of heaven and earth. 1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.
(Italicized emphasis is mine)

---

Sometimes when talking to people from another denomination, you would be setting up the makings of a debate rather than a discussion, if you first try to establish the Authority of the Church; which in some, but not necessarily all cases; makes for a futile exercise. Sometimes it is best to start off with scripture and see where you can go from there; keeping in mind that the main things you have in common with other denominations is Jesus and the Bible…

**I guess I should point out that I am not a Lutheran and have been contemplating the Catholic Church for several years now; I just thought it should be pointed out that when we talk Sola Scriptura, we should understand that not everyone has the same understanding of it. **

Once again, I mean no disrespect to any denomination.

---

**Peace and Love to all. **

branch???

 

[praxis62]

kepha1:

The Bible IS Tradition. Everything in the Bible can be found in the LIVING TRADITION of the Church. If all the bibles in the world were to be destroyed, we would still have all the teachings of the Bible in the LIVING TRADITION of the Church.

There was not one single New Testament letter written for 23 +years AFTER Pentacost. Any Protestant study bible will tell you that. The LIVING TRADITION that preserved the Word of God did not die out with the death of the last Apostle or the invention of the printing press. There was no ‘bible’ until the end of the 3rd century, so it took a long time for full acceptance of all the books to be binding on the universal Church. Why did the Church Fathers want to have a bible?

SO THEY WOULD KNOW FOR SURE WHAT COULD BE LEGITIMATELY BE READ DURING THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS AND DEVOTIONS.

NOWHERE in the bible does it say the “Word of God” must be enscripturated to be legitimate. In fact, wherever tradition and scripture are listed together in the bible, tradition always comes first.

As Art Sippo aptly puts it:
The Christian Rule of Faith included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and the Canon of the Bible. All that and others, pre-existed the Canon of the Bible, and the historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

Kepha: Your right. Have you been successful using this as a starting point for discussion with Protestants? What seems to work best for you?
Thanks
Praxis62

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

praxis62:

Nun: Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate it. I had no idea some Lutheran churches were in communion with Rome. Could you tell me which ones they are. I was an ELCA Lutheran for several years, I know they arn’t, and I know the Missouri Synod isn’t, and I am pretty sure that the Wisconsin Synod and the Apostolic Lutherans isn’t. I am not sure about the Lutheran church in Finland. I just read the other day that they wanted to be Catholics.(?) Can you elaborate on this for me?
**Hi Praxis62 **
I have to say, I could be wrong in my understanding; however I have alway thought that to be in communion, was to share Apostolic succession, despite doctrinal differences; for instance, the Orthodox Church and the Roman Rite have their doctrinal differences, yet have apostolic succession and therefore are in communion.
Having said that, there would be only a couple of Lutheran churches which fit this bill. One being the Lutheran Church of Sweden and the other that I am aware of, is the Lutheran Orthodox Church, whose Apostolic Succession is recognized by Rome. (albeit a recent occurance.)

DECLARATION; DOMINUS JESU,
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH, THE VATICAN,
**AUGUST 6 2000 **17.Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by Bishops in communion with him. The [other] Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by Apostolic Succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church…"

As a purely practical matter, it may be necessary to start with scripture quoteing, but sooner or later it has to come around to questions of ecclesiology. Then you can make some progress.
The Church fathers always referred to scripture but usually in the sense that it was understood in the Church. They were not Sola Scriptura Christians, in the sense we understand the term today.

I agree the Fathers were not Sola Scriptura believers in the sense alot believe it to mean these day, but they did see it as the rule of faith; if someone taught something which contradicted the Scriptures, it was to be rejected, no matter who taught it…even Polycarp…(who did no such thing!)
I agree with the Church; I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, meaning bible alone, but I do believe that we must look to the bible and then decide if something we are being taught contradicts this…having said that, I know that the Church has spent hundreds of years ironing out minor little imperfections that find their way into the Church.

I feel I have made a bungle of this thread…I apologise to everyone. I really don’t think I have managed to convey my meaning very well, although I have tried.

You should jump into the Church with the rest of us, the waters fine.

Thanks Prax (hope you don’t mind me shortening this),
I will be jumping in, but right now I need to get my head back on track with my heart. It is being a tad stubborn!
Please pray for me, as I make my way to the Church.
Thanks Again
Praxis62

**jjwilkman, **

When I say branch, I mean to say that like everything, depending where you go, you get different rules / standards.
For instance, in the Lutheran Church of Australia, women would not be considered for ordination, yet in some Lutheran churches, there are ordained women. Some of the churches are more liberal in their thinking, and so it really depends which one you go to, as to the rules and regulations you follow.

---

Prax,
Whilst I think of it; here is a site on the Lutheran Orthodox you may like to peruse, in case you had not heard of them.
orgsites.com/pa/lutheranorthodox/

**Peace be to you all and those whom you love **

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

**Prax, **
There was something I failed to put in my last post, which I have just thought of. I realized this may arise, and decided I would pre-empt the question and answer regarding the ‘valid Eucharist’…I know the Catholic Church does not recognize the Luthern Eucharist as valid, due to the fact it is not consecrated etc by valid Bishops (in accordance with Catholic beliefs);this become a moot point once the Bishops have apostolic succession, which seems to be the case in the Lutheran Orthodox Church, for instance. What they believe happens to the bread and wine matters not, considering both believe in the real presence; and if it is a valid sacrifice that is all that matters, wouldn’t you agree?

Thanks for your patience with me.

Peace and Love

 

[Malachi4U]

Jesus founded a Church, the Catholic Church, His body, to be with us and to have His authority on earth. He promised to be with His Church till the end of time.

The Bible was written, cannonized, invented and declared inspired by the Church Christ founded. Without the Churches authority the Bible is no more valid then the Koran or Book of Mormon, etc. It is the authority of Christs Church that TELLS us the Bible is inspired and which version.

Just look at what Satan has done to various Protestant versions of the Bible written without authority. Look at the JW Bible, the LDS Bible, Joseph Smith Bible, Luther Bible, Geneva Bible, AKJV, KJV, NKJV, NIV, etc…:whacky: Every homosexual king, heritic Catholic monk, publisher wanting to make a buck, or some dishonest kid starting his own church can write a Bible and sell it to someone. All these Protestant versions have various number of books and verses. Meanings change based on the theology, political leaning or money making potential. It is only through the Church that we have a safe guard to preserve Sacred Scripture as proven throughout history. If God does not change then why do Protestant Bibles and their meanings and thier miss-self-interpretations at every whim and fancey? Why do they see fit to re-form Gods word to fit thier own opinions and not Gods?

The Bible is a tool of the Church just like a building or a monk, etc. It is sad that some people worship the tool (as if it were a graven image) and not the mechanic God gave us to lead our souls and prepare us to follow Him and instruct us in His word.

A book is no better then those who write it. The Church is guided and protected by the God who founded her. Her Bible is inspired. The others may be close, but they contain error. Some more then others.

Why would I want to read a Bible written by a schismatic in violation of the book itself? I’ll obey Scripture and remain LOYAL to Christ and His body, His Catholic Church.